FOURIER.
In his “Social Movements in France”[64] Lorenz von Stein uses these
words, in comparing Saint-Simon and Fourier: “While Saint-Simon was
sacrificing his life in Paris in his efforts to attain an unknown and
only vaguely conjectured goal, and while his school was struggling
against foes from within and without, there lived in another part of
France a man who, without knowing Saint-Simon, was taking an essentially
different route towards the same goal. This man was Charles Fourier....
Never has any land at the same time produced two men of such importance
in the history of society.”[65]
These two men together constitute one whole. Each was required as a
complement of the other. The one started in his career as a man of wealth
and social eminence, the other as a man of the people. The one observed
society, studied its history, its development, and sought to find therein
a clew to guide him in his work of regenerating the world, morally and
economically; the other, regarding the past as such a series of blunders
as to afford no proper basis for future formations, searched the depths
of his own consciousness, and discovered a law which furnished premises,
enabling him to construct deductively an ideal and perfect society, and
to explain with mathematical accuracy the past, present, and future of
the entire universe.
Saint-Simon was a man of impulse and feeling; Fourier was a man of the
understanding and logic. The former founded a religion; the latter a
science.
Charles Fourier was born in 1772 in Besançon. He came of an ordinary
family and represented the middle-class. His father was a cloth-merchant
in his native city, and he himself spent the greater part of his life
in mercantile pursuits of one kind or another. Fourier seems to have
been a bright boy, for when only eleven years of age he took prizes for
excellence in French and Latin. He liked the study of geography, spending
a considerable part of his pocket-money for maps and globes, and was
passionately fond of music and flowers. It is said that he was himself a
good musician. His mechanical ability was remarkable enough to attract
attention at an early period in his life. As a commercial traveller he
visited Germany and Holland, and was thus able to gratify his desire
to see the world. Upon the death of his father, he inherited about one
hundred thousand francs at an early age, invested the money in foreign
trade, and lost it in the siege of Lyons in 1793, during the Reign of
Terror, when his bales of cotton were used to form barricades and his
provisions to feed the soldiers. But Fourier’s misfortunes did not end
here. He was taken prisoner, and kept in confinement for some time,
expecting daily to be led forth to execution. Release, however, enabled
him to join the army, for which he had some taste. It is, indeed, stated
that he was able to make suggestions concerning military operations
which were followed to advantage by his superiors. But ill-health obliged
him to retire from the army at the expiration of two years, and return to
a business life.
Fourier was never greatly prospered, nor did he ever, so far as I know,
give evidence of ability to achieve a large amount of worldly success.
In this he was unlike almost every other great communist or socialist.
However, it must be acknowledged that his mind was from childhood engaged
with other thoughts than the means of acquiring wealth, so that we are
scarcely in a position to say what he might have done in this direction
if he had devoted himself heartily to business. It is certain that to
him the words idler and bungler do not apply, and that he had no desire
to fork out his penny and pocket another’s shilling. On the contrary, it
was to give, and not receive, that he desired. This trait of all large
souls was manifested in a touching way when he was a small boy. There
came one morning to the door of his father’s house a poor cripple, asking
if little Charles was ill. When he was told that Charles was not ill,
but had left the city, he burst into tears. Inquiry disclosed the fact
that while on his way to school, and without the knowledge of others, the
little fellow had every day given half of his lunch to the poor man.
Two events occurring to Fourier in early life led him to a train of
thought which ended in his condemnation of the economic organization of
society as a disastrous failure.
When he was five years of age he proved himself an _enfant terrible_ by
telling the truth in an innocent and childlike manner to some customers,
about certain goods in his father’s shop; and for this he was punished.
The falsehood which his father or some person connected with the shop was
accustomed to tell the customers appears to have been one of the kind
common in some parts of the mercantile world, and which many might to-day
regard as not very sinful—as not worse, at any rate, than the white lies
of society.
The other incident occurred when he was nineteen years of age. He was
connected with a business house in Marseilles, and was required to assist
in throwing overboard rice, which his employer had kept for speculative
purposes and had allowed to remain in the hold of a ship until it was
spoiled. Prices were high, owing to a famine, and it was feared they
would fall if the rice were thrown on the market. Young Fourier argued
that a system which forced children to lie and men to allow food needed
by hungry people to rot must be radically defective.
He began to elaborate a social scheme which should promote truth,
honesty, economy of resources, and the development of our natural
propensities. This became the one aim of his life. He constructed an
ideal world, and in this he ever lived. Association with its imaginary
creatures was his company; the fancy that he had benefited them was his
consolation in adversity, and the unwavering belief that the creations of
his brain were good, enabled him to persevere to the end. Yet at times he
must have felt the severity of his struggle against self and the world.
He had published[66] what he considered a weighty work, “La Théorie des
Quatre Mouvements,” containing a prospectus and an outline of his system,
five years before he found even one supporter. Think what that means!
A reformer presents to mankind plans which he knows will save men from
poverty, selfishness, hypocrisy, corruption, intrigue, deceit, crime, and
all manner of misfortune and wickedness, and for five years his projects
are not so much as noticed. Like Luther of old, he offers to maintain his
theses against all comers, and no one thinks it worth while to engage in
the controversy. The sufferings of humanity pain his large heart, but
year after year slips by and brings not one sympathizer, not one helper,
in his endeavors to save the world. It is easy to speak the words “five
years,” but such a period has often seemed endless to those who have been
obliged to live it.
Fourier’s first supporter was not such a one as he desired to promote his
plans. Slowly others came, but he never had a large following. He wrote
to Robert Owen, the English communist, but received no encouragement,
while the Saint-Simonians treated him with contempt. He did not desire so
much the adherence of personal disciples as men of property, who could
enable him to make a trial of his scheme; for he thought the practical
workings of one experiment would convince the world. He announced
publicly that he would be at home every day at noon to meet any one
disposed to furnish a million francs for an establishment based on the
principles which he had published, and it is said that for twelve years
he repaired to his house daily at the appointed hour. The philanthropist
whom he awaited never came. Only one experiment was made in his lifetime.
In 1832 a member of the Chamber of Deputies offered an estate near
Versailles as the basis of an association, and the offer was accepted by
a few converts. Fourier was never satisfied with the management, which
seems to have been defective, and the experiment soon failed.
Fourier died at the age of sixty-five, without having had the
satisfaction of seeing any decided measures taken for the realization of
his plans. He had, however, succeeded in gaining the appreciation and
friendship of a number of followers, and he passed his last days in the
enjoyment of every comfort.
His tombstone bears this characteristic inscription, expressive of his
faith and his hope:
“Les attractions sont proportionnelles aux destinées,
La série distribue les harmonies.”
Fourier wrote three works of importance. The first is the one already
mentioned, “La Théorie des Quatre Mouvements et des Destinées
Générales”—“The Theory of the Four Movements and the General
Destinies”—published in 1808. The four movements were social, animal,
organic, and material, giving us society, animal life, organic life,
and the material world. The object is to show that one law, that of
attraction, governs them all. Newton discovered the law of one movement,
the material; Fourier, that this same law of attraction pervaded all
four movements. This discovery prepared the way for the most astonishing
and most fortunate event which could happen to this globe—viz., “the
sudden passage from social chaos to universal harmony.”[67] This work
was considered incomplete by Fourier himself, and the fantastic notions
and ridiculous prophecies contained in it were the subject of so much
ridicule and criticism that for a long time he would not mention
the book, and was unwilling to hear others speak of it. When he was
afterwards urged to republish it he refused, saying that it contained
errors, and he should be obliged to rewrite it, to make it satisfactory
to himself.[68]
Fourier’s chief work was his “Traité de l’Association Domestique Agricole
ou Attraction Industrielle”—“Treatise on Domestic Rural Association or
Industrial Attraction”—published subsequently in his complete works
under the title of “La Théorie de l’Unité Universelle”[69]—“The Theory
of Universal Unity.” The first edition appeared in 1822. The fourteen
years between the appearance of the “Théorie des Quatre Mouvements” and
the “Traité de l’Association” were passed in meditation, in revolving and
evolving plans in his mind.
He worked out a complete philosophy in the “Traité.” His system not only
included man and the earth, but the heavens above and the waters under
the earth. His scientific notions were crude in the extreme. Nature
was composed of eternal and indestructible principles—of God, active
and moving principle; of matter, passive principle; and of justice or
mathematics, the regulating principle of the universe, to which God
himself was subject. One of the most curious features of Fourier’s system
is the use he makes of figures. Pythagoras himself did not attach more
importance to them. They revealed to him hitherto undisclosed secrets, so
that he was able to give a precise answer to any conceivable question.
They enabled him to prophesy. He foresaw that the existence of the human
race on this earth was to continue until it completed a period of eighty
thousand years. This period is divided into four phases, two of them
ascending phases of vibration or gradation, and two descending phases of
vibration or degradation. The following table gives the four phases:
ASCENDING VIBRATION.[70]
FIRST PHASE.
Infancy, or ascending incoherence, 1/16 = 5,000 years.
SECOND PHASE.
Growth, or ascending combination, 7/16 = 35,000 years.
DESCENDING VIBRATION.
THIRD PHASE.
Decline, or descending combination, 7/16 = 35,000 years.
FOURTH PHASE.
Dotage, or descending incoherence, 1/16 = 5,000 years.
-------------
Total, 80,000 years.
The life of the race thus resembles the life of man. The earth is just
progressing out of its infancy. It will have passed into the second
phase when it has adopted Fourier’s plan of association. Its life up to
the present time has been weak, childlike, and full of sufferings, but
it is to receive reparation for this in seventy thousand happy years,
surpassing in good fortune any previously described millennium. Lions
will become servitors of man, and draw his carriage from one end of
France to another in a single day; while whales will pull his ships
across the waters, provided he does not prefer to ride on the back of a
seal. Sea-water will become a more delightful beverage than lemonade;
while a bright light at the North Pole will not only render that part of
the world inhabitable, but will diffuse an exquisite aroma over all the
earth. Our bodies are part of the earth, and it suffers with us. When we
adopt Fourier’s scheme we shall cease to suffer, and shall release the
earth from its ills. Our souls are also parts of the great world-soul,
and no part can be in pain without bringing grief to the whole. As
St. Paul has it, “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
together.”
Fourier believed, further, in the immortality of the soul, in its
existence hereafter, and in its previous existence. He held to the
transmigration of the soul, and in its frequent return to this earth to
partake in the happy future of the human race. According to him, mind is
always joined to matter so that it may ever enjoy material pleasures.
When the mind leaves one body it unites itself to another, and always
to a higher one. It develops continually. It passes also from world to
world, though ever and anon returning to the earth. Our souls will have
existed in one hundred and ten different worlds before the end of our
planetary system. The planets themselves have immortal souls, which are
also subject to transmigration. At the expiration of eighty thousand
years the soul of the earth will take up its abode in another and more
perfect body.
But it is not necessary to devote more time to these nonsensical
speculations. It is not on their account that Fourier is remembered. He
himself recognized the fact that his chief merit was the production of
his social system. On this point he says:
“But what do these accessories impart to the principal affair, which is
the art of organizing combined industry, whence will issue a fourfold
product; good morals; the accord of the three classes—rich, middle, and
poor; the discontinuance of party quarrels, the cessation of pests,
revolutions, and fiscal penury; and universal unity?
“My detractors condemn themselves in attacking me on account of my views
touching the new sciences—cosmogony, psychogony, analogy—which lie
outside of the domain of the theory of combined industry. Although it
should prove true that these new sciences are erroneous and foolish,[71]
it does not remain less certain that I am the first and the only one who
has presented a plan for associating inequalities and for quadrupling
the products of industry in employing such passions, characters, and
instincts as nature has given us. This is the only point upon which
people ought to fix their attention, and not upon sciences which have
only been announced.”
The “Traité de l’Association” is prolix and tedious. It abounds in
meaningless combinations of figures, letters, and hieroglyphics. New
and strange words, coined without necessity, often render the thoughts
difficult to understand. The wheat which it undoubtedly contains is
buried beneath such an immense pile of chaff that it is too likely to
be overlooked. Fortunately, Fourier has given us a better and more
condensed exposition of his doctrine in the “Nouveau Monde Industriel et
Sociétaire”—“The New Industrial and Social World”—published in 1829,[72]
and the latest of his more important works.
The central idea of Fourier’s social scheme is association. The
all-pervading attraction which he discovered draws man to man and reveals
the will of God. It is passionate attraction—_attraction passionnelle_.
It urges men to union. This law of attraction is universal and eternal,
but men have thrown obstacles in its way so that it has not had free
course. Consequently, we have been driven into wrong and abnormal paths.
When we return to right ways—when we follow the directions given us by
attraction, as indicated in our twelve passions or desires—universal
harmony will again reign. Economic goods—an indispensable condition
of human development—will be obtained in abundance. Products will be
increased many fold, owing, first, to the operation of the passion to
labor and to benefit society; secondly, to the economy of associated
effort.
Since happiness and misery depend upon the latitude allowed our
passions—our propensities—it is necessary to enumerate these. They are
divided into three classes—the one class tending to _luxe_, _luxisme_,
luxury; the second tending to groups; the third to series. By _luxe_
is meant the gratification of the desires of the five senses—hearing,
seeing, feeling, tasting, smelling—each one constituting a passion.
These are sensual in the original sense of the word, or sensitive. Four
passions tend to groups—viz., amity or friendship, love, paternity or
the family feeling (familism), and ambition. These are affective. The
three remaining passions are distributive, and belong to the series.
They are the passions called _cabaliste_, _papillonne_, and _composite_.
The passion _cabaliste_ is the desire for intrigue, for planning and
contriving. It is strong in women and the ambitious. In itself it would
tend to destroy the unity of social life, as would also the passion
_papillonne_, or _alternante_ (the love of change). These are, however,
harmonized by the passion _composite_ (the desire of union). All twelve
passions unite together into the one mighty, all-controlling impulse,
called _unitéisme_, which is the love felt for others united in society,
and is a passion unknown in civilization. It is rather difficult for the
uninitiated to see how this differs from the passion _composite_, unless
it be in strength. The following table serves to make the relations of
the passions clearer:[73]
Seeing } }
Hearing } Passions tending (pertaining) to }
Smelling } luxury (sensual or sensitive). }
Feeling } }
Tasting } }
}
Amity } }
Love } Passions tending to groups (affective). } Unitéisme.
Paternity } }
Ambition } }
}
Cabaliste } Passions tending to }
Papillonne, or alternante } series (distributive). }
Composite } }
A social organization must be formed which will allow free play to
our passions, so that they may combine harmoniously. Our present
society, called civilization,[74] does not, and cannot, do this. It is
a system of oppression and repression, and is necessarily a frightful
discord. Harmony can only be found in combinations of suitable numbers
in communities known as phalanxes, and occupying buildings called
phalansteries. Each phalanx is a unit, a great family, and dwells in a
single building, a phalanstery. What is it that determines the proper
number for a single phalanx? It is again the twelve passions of man.
These can be combined in eight hundred and twenty different ways in as
many individuals, and no possible combination ought to be unrepresented
in the workers of any phalanx, or there will be a lack of perfect
harmony. But in every community there will be found old men, infants, and
those disabled on account of illness or accident. Provision must also
be made for absences. There ought not, then, to be less than fifteen or
sixteen hundred members in a phalanx, though four hundred is mentioned
as a possible but undesirable minimum. Eighteen hundred to two thousand
members are recommended. A larger number would produce discord, and is,
therefore, inadmissible. But a further arrangement is necessary. These
different characters thrown together helter-skelter would no more produce
harmony than it would for one blindfolded to draw from a bag two thousand
combinations of notes for the piano and play them in the order in which
they were drawn. On the contrary, they must be ordered intelligently in
series, the series combined into groups, and the groups united into the
phalanx. Those having similar tastes form a series, which must consist
of some seven, eight, or nine members. Several series having related
tastes and desires unite in a group. A group undertakes some one kind of
labor, as the care of fruit-trees, and a series concerns itself with one
particular branch of the labor of a group, as the care of apple-trees.
All labor becomes pleasant to man, as nature meant it should be. It is
only when he is forced to do a kind which he does not like, or is obliged
to over-work, that productive exertion becomes repulsive. This is avoided
in the phalanxes, as each one is allowed to follow his own bent, being
at perfect liberty to join any group of laborers or to change from group
to group as he may see fit. In fact, the desire for change—the passion
_papillonne_, or _alternante_—is so strong that at the expiration of
two hours a change is usually made from one kind of labor to another.
Work of this character becomes play, and children like it, while men
are as fond of it as of athletic sports. We now discover men undergoing
severe physical exertion for the sake of excelling in running, swimming,
wrestling, rowing, etc. There will spring up a similar rivalry between
groups of cultivators in the phalanxes. One set of laborers will endeavor
to obtain more useful products from ten or one hundred acres than another
similar group from the same extent of land of like quality. We find
such a rivalry at present among cultivators of the soil, and it might
undoubtedly be increased in organizations such as Fourier described.
Every fall you see it reported in local papers that farmer A has raised,
let us say, four hundred bushels of oats from ten acres; this at once
provokes B to inform the world that his ten acres yielded five hundred
bushels. C may report five hundred and fifty bushels in the coming year.
This demonstrates the existence of a rivalry of a valuable kind, of
which much might be made. But Fourier pushed things to an extreme when
he thought that the productiveness of labor might thereby be increased
fourfold, or even fivefold. He held that a man could produce enough under
his social _régime_ from his eighteenth to twenty-eighth year, so that he
could pass the remainder of his life in elegant leisure. He maintained,
too, that if England should introduce his socialistic phalanxes her labor
would become so productive that she could pay off her national debt in
six months by the sale of hens’ eggs. This is what he says on this point:
“It is not by millions, but by billions, that we shall value the product
of small objects which are to-day despised. It is now the turn of eggs to
play a grand _rôle_, and resolve a problem before which those learned in
European finance have grown pale. They only know how to increase public
indebtedness. We are going to extinguish the colossal English debt on a
fixed day with half of the eggs produced during a single year. We shall
not lay violent hands on a single fowl, and the work of accomplishing our
purpose, instead of being burdensome, will be an amusement for the globe.
“Let us make an arithmetical calculation. We wish to pay a debt of
twenty-five billions during the year 1835, with hen’s eggs.
“Let us estimate, to begin with, the real value of these eggs. I appraise
them at ten sous or half a franc a dozen, when they are guaranteed fresh
and of a good size, like those of the hens of Caux....
“Valuing at ten sous a dozen the guaranteed good, large, and fresh eggs
of fowls, nourished with all the resources of art, we should have to
count upon fifty billions of dozens of eggs in order to extinguish in a
single year the English debt.
“The hen, the most precious of fowls, is a truly cosmopolitan bird. With
suitable care she becomes acclimated everywhere. She flourishes on the
sands of Egypt and among the glaciers of the North.
“I will prove that the hennery of one phalanx ought to contain at least
10,000 hens, not including the pullets, twenty times as numerous.
“Let us estimate that a hen lays 200 eggs a year. She ought not, perhaps,
to be expected to do this under our present social _régime_, but well
cared-for in a socialistic phalanx she could do rather more....
“Let us add up, and, after the manner of good housewives, neglect
fractions.... Let us suppose that the hennery of each phalanx contains
12,000 hens, instead of 10,000.
“One thousand dozens of eggs at half a franc the dozen would amount to
500 francs. Multiplying this by 200, we would have from each phalanx a
product valued at 100,000 francs. We must now multiply this by 600,000,
the number of phalanxes, which gives a total product of 60,000,000,000.
“Now, as we have estimated the number of hens at 12,000 for each phalanx,
in order to facilitate the calculation, it will be necessary to deduct
one sixth from our product, which will leave 50,000,000,000. Divide this
by two, and the quotient is 25,000,000,000, precisely the amount of the
English debt expressed in round numbers.”—Q. E. D.
Of course, such amusing and ridiculous passages in Fourier’s writings do
not give us any sufficient ground for condemning the cardinal principles
of Fourierism.
Besides the productivity of labor by a rivalry between producers, the
socialistic phalanx will avoid the waste of goods caused by industrial
and commercial competition. Twenty men are often employed to do what
three or four might accomplish with ease, were the labor properly
organized. Think of the enormous loss to society of labor and capital
due to a superfluity of retail shops all over a great country like the
United States! It may not have occurred to some that whenever capital,
consisting of economic goods, like houses, buildings, implements, etc.,
is not fully employed, or whenever men are waiting for work, economic
power is being wasted. This view of the effects of competition ought to
influence our legislators more than it does. Let us take the case of
two parallel railroads, where one might do all the business. Thousands
of acres of land are needlessly and forever removed from agricultural
purposes, thousands of tons of iron and steel are diverted from other
uses, the labor of hundreds of men is permanently wasted—in short, the
millions sunk in the enterprise in the first place, together with the
cost of maintaining and working it, are forever lost to the society.
Competition thus often makes it cost far more to do a given amount of
business than it would otherwise. If Fourierism could rid us of the evils
of free competition without depriving us of the benefits we derive from
it, it would, indeed, be in so far a great blessing to the world. Fourier
felt positive that it could, but he has never succeeded in convincing a
large number to put faith in his bright promises.
The economy of associated effort and associated life is one of the
leading factors which will increase the wealth of man. Every square
league of land has its one phalanstery occupied by a phalanx, consisting
of some four hundred families. It costs no more to build a palace for
all these families than it would to construct four hundred separate
and uncomfortable cottages. While each family has its separate rooms,
cooking is carried on in common, and great saving is thereby secured.
A fire to cook four hundred dinners may not cost ten times as much as
a fire to cook two, while it requires scarcely a greater exertion to
watch a large roast than a small one. In the housing of animals, foods,
implements, etc., a similar economy is secured. A large number working
together afford every opportunity for a fruitful combination and division
of labor. Other economies will be effected by the suppression of useless
classes. In the new society there will be no soldiers of destruction,
no policemen, agents of a discordant social _régime_, no criminals and
lawyers, both products of civilization, of disharmony; finally, no
metaphysicians and no political economists. Agriculture is the leading
occupation, while commerce and manufacturing industry are reduced to a
minimum. Products are conveniently exchanged among members of a commune,
while phalanx exchanges superfluities with phalanx and nation with nation
in the most economical manner.
Fourier’s socialistic system is not so pure a form of socialism as that
of Saint-Simon, inasmuch as he retained private capital and, temporarily
at least, inheritance. The division of products takes place in this wise:
A certain minimum—a very generous one—is set apart for each member of the
commune, and the enormous surplus is divided between labor, capital, and
talent—five twelfths going to labor, four twelfths to capital, and three
twelfths to talent. The division is made by the phalanxes through the
agency of officers whom they elect. The maxim is not labor according to
capacity and reward according to services, as with the Saint-Simonians,
but labor according to capacity and reward in proportion to exertion,
talent, and capital. Labor is divided into three classes—necessary,
useful, and agreeable—the highest reward accruing to the first and the
smallest to the last division, in accordance with the principles of
equity.
Government—for which, however, there seems to be little need—is
republican. Officers are elected. The chief of a phalanx is a unarch.
The next highest officer is at the head of three or four phalanxes,
and is called a duarch. Triarchs, tetrarchs, pentarchs, etc., follow;
while the highest officer of the world is the omniarch, who dwells at
Constantinople, the capital of the world.
While there are grades in society, the rich and powerful are so animated
by the spirit of association—_unitéisme_—that the differences give no
offence. Familism, the love of those nearest and dearest, loses its
excluding character. The law of social attraction, “while it conserves
the ties and affections of the family, will destroy its exclusive
interests. Association will mingle it to such an extent with the great
communal or phalansterian family that every narrow affection will
disappear, that it will find its own interest in that of all, and will
attach it sincerely and passionately to the public concern (_chose
publique_).”[75]
Fourier favored the so-called emancipation of woman, and assigned her a
high rank in society. He found the economic, legal, and social position
of woman at any given period, or in any country, an exact measure of the
true civilization of said period or country. At the same time he was
obliged to allow many things which good men generally regard as degrading
to woman, as he started from the belief that all natural desires and
propensities were good. It is much to be feared that he would practically
have abolished marriage and the family, as we now understand these
institutions. It is altogether probable that Fourier would have been more
successful in his propaganda had his ideas in every respect been more in
consonance with the teachings of Christian morality.
Fourier was naturally a man of peace. Holding, as he did, that a single
experiment would convince the world that his system of phalanxes was
the only correct organization, he could not consistently advocate a
violent revolution. He believed that the millennium was to dawn in a few
years, even within a shorter period than ten years. Once he advised his
followers not to purchase real property, as the progress of Fourierism
would soon cause it to depreciate in value. His disciples have been
disappointed in their hope that men would speedily accept the principles
of their master, but they have ever opposed violence.
Kaufmann, in his “Schäffle’s Socialism,” thus sums up the chief merits
of Fourier’s teachings: “There is a good deal of truth in some of
his critical remarks. The importance of co-operative production has
been recognized chiefly in consequence of his first pointing out the
economical benefits of the association. The narrow-minded fear of
wholesale trade, and machinery, too, was in a measure dispelled by
Fourier’s unqualified recognition of their value. His remarks on the
unnecessary hardships of labor and the evil consequences of excessive
toil have had their influence on modern factory-laws for the protection
of labor and the shortening of the labor hours. Sanitary reforms, and
improvements of the laborer’s homestead, which have become the question
of the hour, owe not a little of their origin to the spread of Fourier’s
ideas.”
Fourier’s first adherent was Just Muiron, who attached himself to the
master in 1813, and remained a faithful follower for many years. He
wrote two works,[76] in which he exhibited the vices of our existing
industrial society and explained the metaphysical principles of
Fourierism. Gradually others joined the movement, of whom the most
important was Victor Considerant, the author of “La Destinée Sociale,
Exposition Élémentaire, Complète de la Théorie Sociétaire”—“Social
Destiny, a Complete Elementary Exposition of the Social Theory”—published
in the years 1834-38, in three volumes, and in a new edition, in 1851,
in two volumes. This is the ablest presentation of the doctrine, and
has become, as another writer has said, the text-book of the school.
Among other members of note may be mentioned Baudet-Dulary, the deputy
who, in 1832, offered an estate for an experimental association; Madame
Gatti de Gammond, author of the best short and popular exposition of
Fourierism;[77] Madame Clarisse Vigoureux, a wealthy and talented
lady;[78] Charles Pellarin, the able biographer of his master;[79]
finally, Jules le Chevalier, a former Saint-Simonian, and author of a
Fourieristic work of importance.[80] When the Saint-Simonians separated,
a considerable number of them passed over to Fourierism. It will be seen
that the new doctrine lacked neither wealth nor ability. Its numbers were
at first small, but after the death of Fourier the school received large
accessions of adherents. The disciples published a paper, which, under
various names,[81] and with breaks in its appearance, was published as
a weekly, monthly, and daily. The disciples finally formed “The Society
for the Propagation and Realization of the Theory of Fourier”—“La
Société pour la Propagation et pour la Réalisation de la Théorie de
Fourier”—which is probably still alive. At any rate, a writer[82] stated
in 1872 that it was then in existence, in possession of a capital of
seven hundred thousand francs, and was still determined to labor for the
good cause. All the strictly Fourieristic experiments tried in France
thus far have failed. Possibly another trial may be more successful. At
present the school embraces only a small number of peaceful socialists,
living mostly in Paris. Victor Considerant, now seventy-five years old,
is among these.
One of the best fruits which Fourier’s teachings have borne may be found
in a social community at Guise, in France, where capital and labor are
associated much after his plans, although all objectionable and immoral
elements appear to have been left out. The founder is Jean Godin, a
wealthy manufacturer, and a Fourierist with modified views, who has used
his wealth to benefit his own laborers directly and immediately, by
providing them with comfortable homes, amusements, instruction, etc.,
and laborers, as a class, indirectly and remotely, by paving the way
for a higher form of social life, a certain kind of co-operation. He
himself says of the _Familistère_ at Guise, as the building in which
the community lives is called, that it “is the first example of a
capital resolutely employed under a single direction, with the view of
uniting in one place all the things necessary to the life of a large
number of working families; it is the first example of an administration
concentrating operations so diverse in order that the results may
accrue to the greatest good of the families, removing thus useless
intermediaries: all this in preserving, by an economic organization, the
capital engaged in the enterprise.”[83]
While the community resembles a phalanx, as described by Fourier, in many
respects, it also differs from it in many others. It resembles it in its
abode, constructed much like a phalanstery, and with a large share of
the elegance and comfort so glowingly pictured by Fourier. It resembles
it also in securing economy and increased comfort by associated effort.
Further resemblance is found in the care for the children, the sick, the
aged, and the disabled, in the provision for education and recreation,
and in the attempt to realize a condition of things fitting those who
believe in the brotherhood of man. Differences are found in the large
share of power which M. Godin has reserved for himself, the removal of
obviously ridiculous and fantastic contrivances, and in the absence
altogether of agriculture, which Fourier considered the chief occupation
of regenerated society. The establishment consists of iron, copper,
sugar, and chiccory factories. M. Godin regrets that agriculture has not
been included in the pursuits, but it does not seem to have been found
practicable.
The social body consists of about fifteen hundred members. The
_familistère_, or social palace in which they live, is thus described:
it is “‘an immense brick edifice in the form of three parallelograms,’
each of which encloses an interior court, covered with a glass roof
and paved with cement. The building is four stories high. The central
parallelogram, or rectangle, is two hundred and eleven feet front and
one hundred and thirty feet deep.... The stores of the association ...
on the lowest story of the central portion of the building ... contain
whatever is necessary for ordinary need and comfort, without reference to
luxuries.... ‘In the social palace fifteen hundred persons can see each
other go to their daily domestic occupations, reunite in public places,
go to market or shopping, under covered galleries, without traversing
more than two hundred yards, and, as comfortably in one kind of weather
as in another.’”[84] There is also a large nursery, where children are
taught “to associate equitably with one another.” They are brought there
by the mothers at about ten in the morning, and are taken back to the
family apartments between five and six in the afternoon. Many pleasant
things are connected with the life in this social palace, as it is
called. There are numerous concerts, and a theatre furnishes opportunity
for theatricals. Even a billiard-room is provided for the amusement of
the members. Two festivals are celebrated yearly—“The Festival of Labor,”
in May, and the “Festival of the Children,” in September.[85]
The following are a few extracts from the declaration of principles with
which their “laws” open:
“V. It is the essential duty of society and of every individual
so to regulate their conduct as to produce the greatest
possible benefits to humanity, and to make this the constant
object of all their thoughts, words, and actions.
“VI. The perception of this duty has dictated to the sages of
all time the following precepts:
“‘To love others as one’s self.’
“‘To act towards others as you would wish that they should act
towards you.’
“‘To make our abilities conduce to the perfection of our
existence and that of others.’ ...
“‘To unite together and give support to one another.’
“VII.... The laws of universal order, and especially the law of
human progress, place at the disposal of men—
“The resources of nature and those of the public property.
“Labor and intelligence.
“Capital or accumulated labor.
“VIII. It is for the good of all humanity that nature vivifies
and produces everything useful to human life, and it is,
without doubt, for the benefit of all, that each generation
should transmit to its successors its acquired knowledge.
“IX. By giving existence to man, God accords to him a right to
what is necessary for him in the resources which nature every
day affords to humanity, as well as the right to profit by the
progress of society.
“XI. (The) perpetual and gratuitous assistance from nature
proves that man, by the very fact of his birth, acquires, and
should never lose, a certain degree of natural right in the
wealth that is produced.
“Hence it follows that the weak have the right to enjoy what
nature and the public property place at the disposal of men.
“And that it is the duty of the strong to leave to the weak a
just share of the general product.”[86]
The products are divided according to this socialistic—not
communistic—scheme between labor and capital. It has existed upwards of
twenty years thus far, and has prospered. This may have been due to the
talent of M. Godin, its founder. Whether it will be able to maintain its
existence after his death remains to be seen.[87]
M. Godin has described his views on social problems and his endeavors to
benefit the laborers in a valuable work entitled “Solutions Sociales,”
which should be read carefully by those who contemplate founding
co-operative or other establishments for the benefit of the masses.
Fourierism was brought to America about 1840, and soon found numerous
advocates, including many names of which America is proud. Prominent
among the leaders were Albert Brisbane,[88] the head of the movement,
Horace Greeley, and Charles A. Dana. In his “History of American
Socialisms,” Mr. Noyes mentions thirty-four experiments made by
Fourierists in this country, all of which failed for some reason or
other. The most remarkable of these experiments was Brook Farm. At first
it was not called a phalanx, although from the start it combined many
of the features of Fourierism, but it shortly fell in line and became a
Fourieristic experiment. When it is mentioned that its leading spirits
were George Ripley, Charles A. Dana, Margaret Fuller, and others of like
character, it is needless to add that its moral basis was sound. Others,
more or less connected with the experiment, were George William Curtis,
Horace Greeley, Dr. Channing, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. Its exceedingly
interesting and pathetic history is to be found in Frothingham’s “George
Ripley.”[89]